Originally Posted by Graham

Now this is something that gives me problems. If the member states can't agree on something *why* should the EU Commission be able to force something through? Surely the default or fallback position should be "no" rather than "yes"?

Originally Posted by towny

In our recent 'voting intentions' thread there was a little discussion about the lack of honest discussion on the genuine pros and cons of EU membership. I thought I'd resurrect that train of thought here because this morning's Independent is making my blood boil ... under the headline 'The £23bn question', the entire front page is given over to what is, frankly, scaremongering. Or rather it would be scaremongering if it wasn't such a blatant tissue of lies, half-truths and spin. I have seen better written defences of Europe from 'A' level geography students. Here's just one of the priceless nuggets of nonsense:


What the &*£$ # ? :rofl:

The Convention was drawn up by the Council of Europe, a completely different organisation that pre-dates the EU. The Convention is adhered to by the EU, it does not belong to the EU. Withdrawing from the EU would in no way involve withdrawing from the Convention. And in any case, the Convention is now enshrined within our own Law. Repealing it would be a matter entirely separate from any concerns about which international organisations we belong to.

Honestly, the anti-Europe camp have been accused of scaremongering and lies but this takes some beating. I'm not proposing to re-type the entire article here (I am supposed to be at work :D ) but I would urge anyone with an interest in the whole Europe debate to get a look at it.

This is a sad day for rational debate.

Originally Posted by towny

Ironic perhaps that the Independent went tabloid-only a couple of weeks ago ... :spin: Must be a state of mind or something. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Graham

I'd be laughing too if it wasn't so bloody ridiculous! This is the sort of ludicrous nonsense you'd expect from the Tabloids. :mad:



Regrettably very true :(

Addendum: In fact that article irritated me so much I've just sent the following e-mail...

To the Letters Editor: Letter for Publication.

Sir,

Your paper's article "The £23bn Question" is the most ludicrous scaremongering I have read in a non-red top newspaper for a long time.

It suggests that, by "leaving Europe" we would be forced to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It begins with rank economic speculation claiming "More volatile interest rates would add to the risks of boom and bust in the housing markets." but why? Our interest rates are under control now, why should they suddenly become "more volatile" if we leave Europe? What exactly will change?

It lists rights we would apparently lose "Workers would be unable to bring sex, race or disability claims against their employers" and "The Government would have to repeal hundreds of EU directives in UK law." But why? If a law is good, what does it matter whether we're in the EU or not?

This whole article is a tissue of nonsense and is not the sort of reporting I expect from a newspaper such as yours.

You should be ashamed of it.

Yours Faithfully,

Graham Marsden

Originally Posted by Damien

Surely the law would have to be re-passed as it is a europen law and no longer applys if we are not in the eu as the law is invaled

Originally Posted by Theodoric

As Lenin famously said over a century ago, "What is to be done?" So, we elect a UKIP government and promptly withdraw from Europe. Then what? I don't fancy becoming the 51st state, or even becoming part of Nafta so that all our jobs can move to Mexico rather than India or China. As someone in Norway once said, they are now ruled from Brussels by fax.

Originally Posted by TigaSefi

I want blair removed and us out of Europe apart from the minimum standard of trade levels. That is all but Blair must be removed ASAP.